Next Page: 10000

          The First Year of Herod the Great’s Reign      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

A Quick Review

We will begin this article with a brief review of the major points laid out in the previous one (“John 2:12–21 and Herodian Chronology,” http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2018/06/29/John-212e2809321-and-Herodian-Chronology.aspx), and then go into a detailed analysis of some arguments offered against its conclusion that the reign of Herod the Great should be dated to 37 BC, per the reasons laid out by Emil Schürer in A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ.

Josephus Started the Year from Nisan

In the linked article we saw how Josephus’ own words demonstrated that he regarded the month of Nisan as the first month of the Jewish year, hence in Antiquities he followed the ecclesiastical calendar rather than the civil calendar starting in Tishri (emphasis and bracketed comments added; except where noted, the Whiston translation of Antiquities is used throughout this article):

Antiquities 1.3.3 – “But Moses appointed that Nisanshould be the first month…although he preserved the original order of the months [where Nisan, as counted from Rosh Hashanah in Tishri, was taken as the seventh month] as to selling and buying, and other ordinary affairs.”

Antiquities 3.10.5 – “Nisanis the beginning of our year.”

Antiquities 11.4.8 – “the first month; which according to the Macedonians is called Xanthicus; but according to us, Nisan.

It could perhaps be argued that calling Nisan "the first month" is purely a label, and does not entail actually counting years from it. But the fact remains that during the Second Temple period after the Babylonian exile, the Jews themselves, as reflected in both Antiquities 3.10.5 and the Mishnah, regarded Nisan rather than Tishri as "the beginning of our year," and counted their rulers' reigns from it. For our purposes, with a focus on the reign of Herod as a Jewish ruler, that is what matters.

Josephus Used Inclusive Reckoning

In addition it was established, from several examples, that the uncomplicated, plain sense of Antiquities indicates Josephus mainly followed inclusive reckoning. We know that inclusive reckoning was a normal convention in the Bible and in the Roman and Jewish worlds generally, this is not in dispute. The story of Cornelius in Acts 10 was given as a biblical example, while we observed that a straightforward reading of Josephus indicates he followed this convention in the way he handled the time spanned by several pairs of independent, unrelated events: the 27 years from Pompey’s taking of Jerusalem in 63 BC to the start of Herod’s de facto (“in fact”) reign in 37 BC following the siege of Jerusalem, the 107 years from the start of Herod’s reign in 37 BC until the Temple fell to Titus in AD 70, and the seventh year of Herod’s reign matching up with the year of the Battle of Actium on September 2, 31 BC, thus requiring his first year to have been in 37 BC. Since these three examples are obviously discussed in Antiquities—in 14.16.4, 20.10.1, and 15.5.2 respectively, with the last one also addressed in Wars 1.19.3—what Andrew E. Steinmann (“When Did Herod the Great Reign?” Novum Testamentum 51 [2009]: 1–29) states in his note 8 (p. 2) is not borne out by the evidence:

Schürer claimed that Josephus used inclusive reckoning (1896 edition 1.200–201, Vermes and Millar edition, Schürer, History 326–327). If Josephus used inclusive reckoning to arrive at thirty-seven and thirty-four years [the first giving the time from Herod’s Roman appointment to his death, the second from his siege victory to his death, Ant. 17.8.1] (i.e., the years 40–4 BCE inclusive totals thirty-seven), such inclusive reckoning is not indicated elsewhere in Josephus (emphasis and bracketed comment added).

The cited instances do indicate Josephus used inclusive reckoning elsewhere. They should predispose us to view the 37 and 34-year time spans the same way. With one small, but as we shall see, significant correction: Josephus does does not refer to the "siege victory" in Antiquities 17.8.1, but to the death of Antigonus: "When he had done these things, he died...having reigned since he had procured Antigonus to be slain thirty four years." It is an important difference.

Josephus Sometimes Gave Time Durations

The few exceptions to inclusive reckoning in Josephus’ writings were seen to reflect elapsed time, or rather, time durations of single events that covered a period of time from start to completion. Such was the case where Herod's 18th year was said to mark the start of the 46 years the Temple was “a-building,” and with the 126 years that had elapsed since the Hasmonean dynasty was first set up until its last king died. Whereas time spans between two different events were reckoned inclusively as expected, the duration of what were essentially single events having a defined start and end point were dealt with differently. They were treated like birthdays; the first example looked at when the Temple became 46 years old, the second at when the Hasmonean dynasty became 126 years old. Since it is self-evident that one would never say a month-old infant was reckoned as being one year of age, exceptions like these to the normal inclusive reckoning approach are to be expected. But in saying this, we must insist that such exceptions to accommodate the duration of an event do not set aside the general principle of inclusive reckoning, nor reckoning specifically from Nisan in the case of the post-exilic (Second Temple) Judean kings.

I initially thought it would be sufficient to press these three simple, positive evidences upon the reader, deeming them adequate in themselves to powerfully call into question the validity of any chronological approaches that began the de facto reign of Herod in 36 rather than 37 BC. But the more I reflected on the matter, the more I realized that it was the very complexity of the arguments put forth by W.E. Filmer (“The Chronology of the Reign of Herod the Great,” Journal of Theological Studies 17.2 [1966], pp. 283–298) and Steinmann that might cause some readers to be swayed by them. Some people are impressed by cleverness, while for others it is far easier to simply accept these scholars’ judgments on authority than to analyze their arguments. Still others may feel a certain loyalty to particular scholars for other reasons, such as Steinmann’s reputation as a conservative scholar with a significant book on biblical chronology to his credit.

But in the end, none of those factors should influence our evaluation of their arguments, only the strength of the logic and data they present to make their cases. Therefore, before turning to consider the death date of Herod, it is necessary to offer some specific rebuttals to the Filmer/Steinmann contention that Herod’s reign must be dated from his appointment by the Romans, supposedly in 39 BC.

The Attacks on the “Schürer Consensus”

The approaches of Filmer and Steinmann involve attacking what Steinmann dubs the “Schürer consensus.” Their arguments primarily involve seeking ways to get around the manifest appearance of non-accession (inclusive) dating of reigns from Nisan seen in Josephus. But when we closely examine the evidence, we see this effort is built on a framework of assumptions, questionable interpretations, and outright accusations of error leveled against Josephus. In what follows we will attempt to demonstrate the existence of this shaky framework, and call for a return to a solid structure based on accepting the fundamental reliability of Josephus as an historian, with his work interpreted in a straightforward manner.

An Insistence on Non-Inclusive Dating

The fundamental way the Filmerians reinterpret Josephus is by insisting that he consistently used non-inclusive dating in Antiquities, with the month of Tishri (September/October) viewed as the first month of the year. In this approach, the year an event occurred in is not included in the counting. This means that in the case of reign lengths of rulers, where this approach is known as accession-year reckoning, counting began with the first of Tishri after the start of a king’s reign, while with other matters actual reckoning (as we count things today) was used, with the first year counted on the first anniversary after the event.

The problem is, the records of the Jews themselves indicate non-inclusive, accession-year, Tishri-based dating was not followed after the return from the Babylonian exile. The Mishnah, the third century AD rabbinic compilation of Jewish oral tradition, clearly supports inclusive, non-accession reckoning from Nisan during the Second Temple era that included Herod’s reign:

On the first of Nissan is the [cut off date for the] New Year regarding [the count of the reigns of the Jewish] kings [which was used to date legal documents. If a king began his reign in Adar even if was only for one day that is considered his first year, and from the first of Nissan is considered his second year…] On the first of Tishrei is the New Year for [the counting of] years [of non-Jewish kings], for the Shemittah and the Yoveil count...” (http://www.emishnah.com/moed2/Rosh_HaShanah/1.pdf; brackets with summarized Gemara commentary original, emphasis added).

This tells us there were two main calendars (there were minor ones as well, but they can be ignored for our purposes). One began in Tishri and applied to counting years dealing with civil affairs, specifically in regard to kings of foreign nations, sabbatical (shemittah) years, and jubilee (yoveil) counts; the other began in Nisan and applied to Jewish kings and religious festivals. In emphasizing the primacy of Nisan dating for Josephus and for Herodian chronology in particular, we do not deny that Tishri accession-year dating applied to kings’ reigns during the First Temple period, as well as to the reigns of the Babylonian and Persian rulers over the Jews during the Babylonian captivity. But we must insist, on the basis of the Mishnah and the testimony of Josephus, that such reckoning did not apply to Second Temple, post-exilic kings of the Jews like Herod. The evidence clearly indicates that the Jews reckoned Nisan as the first month of their year as far back as the Babylonian exile. We see this unambiguously stated in Esther 3:7 (NASB):

In the first month, which is the month Nisan, in the twelfth year of King Ahasuerus, Pur, that is the lot, was cast before Haman from day to day and from month to month, until the twelfth month, that is the month Adar.

If the first month was Nisan and the twelfth was Adar for Queen Esther, a loyal Jew, the ecclesiastical calendar’s ordering of the months was obviously normative in Jewish minds by that time. There is no clear biblical evidence that the Jews thereafter ever viewed Tishri as the first month of the year for reckoning the reigns of their own rulers.

Preoccupation with Herod’s Roman Appointment

This brings up an important point about Steinmann’s approach to Herod’s reign. He consistently refuses to treat it as beginning with the deposing of Antigonus (Ant. 17.8.1) following the siege of Jerusalem, but insists it began with the Roman appointment. But why must we suppose that, just because the Romans had something to do with his getting the position, their involvement somehow made Herod a non-Jewish, foreign king to whom Tishri dating applied? Antigonus was likewise made king of Judea by the intervention of a foreign power, in his case the Parthians, yet no one tries to represent him as a foreign king. What makes one a foreign king with his reign reckoned from Tishri is ruling over a country other than Judea. This was not the case with Herod. It has to do with a uniform approach to record keeping in affairs of state.

Moreover, Steinmann’s proposal that Herod dated his reign from when the Romans granted him the throne of Judea is beside the point. For our purposes it ultimately does not matter how Herod may have viewed the start of his reign, but how Josephus did and recorded it in his histories. For argument’s sake, the strongest indicator that Herod may have personally placed priority on his Roman appointment could be seen in his coins. Steinmann cites numismatic evidence in support of Herod using Rome-based dating of his reign on page 27:

Herod’s first coins, issued to replace Hasmonean currency, are also the first dated Jewish coins. They are dated to “year three.”

Pictures of these coins, derived from David Hendin’s authoritative Guide to Biblical Coins, can be found at http://www.coinsoftime.com/Articles/The_Coins_of_Herod_the_Great.html. Then he continues:

Clearly, Herod counted the year he first reigned in Jerusalem as the third year of his reign. This means that he counted his first regnal year as beginning no later than Tishri 38 BCE and issued his first coinage shortly after conquering Jerusalem in 36 BCE (emphasis added).

We may regard the supposition that “Herod counted the year he first reigned in Jerusalem as the third year of his reign” as likely, since there are no known Herodian coins bearing year one or two (or any) dates. But the emphasized statement following it depends on first assuming the Filmerian view that Herod was named king by the Romans in 39 BC with non-inclusive accession-year dating applied (39 BC up to the end of Elul being his accession year), followed by the taking of Jerusalem in the fall of 36 BC. The coinsoftime.com website disagrees, saying the coin’s date refers to Herod’s capture of Judea in 37 BC. Steinmann has obviously allowed his assumptions to lead his arguments here.

It should also be observed that Steinmann deals with coin matters very carefully, pointing to the “year three” notation as evidence Herod dated his reign from his Roman appointment, yet in the case of Herod’s son Antipas going to great pains to argue against the numismatic evidence:

Antipas lost the tetrarchy of Galilee and Perea in the second year of Gaius (38/39 CE) and the latest coins minted under his authority are dated to his forty-third year. This means that he claimed to have begun his reign in 5/4 BCE. Why would Archelaus and Antipas claim to have reigned from 4 BCE if Herod did not die in that year? Is this not proof that Herod must have died in 4 BCE and not 1 BCE? (p. 20).

It would seem so on the surface, but Steinmann then goes on to argue at length (devoting five pages to this), on a conjectural basis with considerable reading between the lines, that Herod actually did not die in 4 BC, and the evidence of the coins is misleading in this case. This is a discussion that must be tabled for now. My only point in bringing it up is to show that Steinmann is willing to reinterpret the apparent sense of the evidence when doing so will further his argument.

Let us return to our main point, that Herod’s possible view of the start of his reign is less important than how Josephus viewed it. As we saw earlier when discussing the evidence for inclusive reckoning in Josephus, the examples of Pompey’s 27 years, the Temple’s fall after 107 years, and the Battle of Actium assigned to Herod’s seventh year, all rely on dating from 37 BC. So, too, does the rebuilding of the Temple in Herod’s eighteenth year. None of these figures work with Josephus’ own time spans if they are counted from the Roman appointment three years previously. In presenting the synchronisms as he did, it is clear that, so far as Josephus was concerned, the taking of the city and deposing of Antigonus took priority over the Roman appointment for dating purposes. So, if our goal is to understand Josephus rather than read our own preferences onto his records, that is the basis we likewise should prefer for dating.

At this juncture I wish to mention an insight Ed Rickard shared on his The Moorings website, https://www.themoorings.org/Jesus/birth/Herodian_chronology.html. He proposes that the more detailed information in Antiquities was due to Josephus uncovering additional sources of authoritative, reliable information for dating the reign of Herod after Wars was written. Filmer had pointed out (pp. 286–287) that Josephus included nothing in Wars about the consular year and Olympiad synchronizations Antiquities gives for the 40 and 37 BC regnal start dates. Filmer, filtering this observation through his presuppositions, concludes that Josephus devised his own date synchronizations and introduced dating errors into Antiquities in the process.

There is another way of looking at it, however, that does not require demeaning Josephus: to posit that the additional information sources were official Roman records not known to him until after Wars was written, plus what might be called, as Ralph Marcus and Allen Wikgren translate it in the Loeb version of Antiquities 15.6.3, “Herod’s Memoirs.” This idea is attractive. It is highly probable that official records would have reflected consular dating, while information written by Herod himself would also likely have been from a Roman perspective, given how much he owed them for his exalted position. But even if it was, the question remains: did Josephus himself embrace that perspective in the way he wrote Antiquities? For most Herodian events it makes no substantive difference whether Josephus’ records reflect a January or Nisan first month, but it does matter when we consider exactly when Herod died. That is a matter for future consideration.

It is also worth noting that, notwithstanding the evidence of the coins which, as legal tender of the realm, would naturally have reflected Roman preferences, Herod expended great effort to have the Jews regard him as one of their own rather than a Roman pawn. This is particularly clearly illustrated in the remarks he made in Antiquities 15.11.1 before undertaking the building of the Temple:

I think I need not speak to you, my countreymenOur Fathers indeed, when they were returned from Babylon, built this temple to God Almighty… And it hath been by reason of the subjection of those fathers of ours… I will do my endeavour to correct that imperfection, which hath arisen from the necessity of our affairs, and the slavery we have been under formerly…(emphasis added).

Such self-evident intent to foster an identification of himself with the Jews and gain their loyalty is inconsistent with Steinmann’s insistence that only Roman views mattered to Herod:

Since Herod was appointed by a Gentile power, he probably [assuming a 39 BC appointment as king] began to count his official regnal years as beginning on the following Tishri (September/October) of 38 BCE (since the Jewish civil year began on Tishri). He may have counted his years as beginning in Nisan (March/April) of 38, but this is less likely, since this was the beginning of the religious year, and it would have been unwise to count a Gentile appointment from a sacred Jewish date….This also implies, however, that in Antiquities Josephus numbered Herod’s regnal years from his appointment by the Romans (p. 27, emphasis and bracketed comments added).

All of that is pure conjecture; notice the words “probably,” and “may have.” Consider as well, that apart from being the start of a month—sharing certain prescribed rites with other first days of months (Num. 10:10, 28:11–15), including the first of Tishri—there was nothing especially “sacred” about the first day of Nisan. It was primarily a starting reference point, the first month of the year, from which the Jewish feasts and fasts mandated by the Torah were ordered. It carried with it none of the special “sacredness” that characterized those dates and the weekly Sabbath (Lev. 23).

To wrap up this phase of the discussion, the Mishnah’s stipulations regarding the Tishri dating of kings were for record keeping purposes relative to other countries, not how kings reigning over the Jews from Jerusalem started their rule. Tishri dating therefore does not apply to Herod as a king of Judea. Yet, despite the united testimony of Scripture, Josephus and the Mishnah in favor of inclusive reckoning from Nisan from the time of Esther onwards for Judean kings, Filmer and Steinmann argue against that evidence, asserting that Josephus used accession-year, non-inclusive reckoning from Tishri. They then use this conjecture as the basis for a frontal attack on the plain sense of Josephus’ records. Filmer was the first modern scholar to take this tack, citing Edwin Thiele to claim that the reigns from Solomon to Zedekiah (pre-exilic rulers of the united monarchy, it should be noted) were reckoned from Tishri (p. 294), and then extrapolating from that to Herod. But surely the knowledgeable rabbis who put the Mishnah together had their own post-exilic history and the dating norms that arose from it down pat, which Josephus’ focus on Nisan dating indicates he likewise followed. Arguing against it appears to be flouting the evidence.

An Insistence on Factual Reckoning: The Actium Issue

Nevertheless, Steinmann chose to align himself closely with Filmer on this and many other matters. One is the Actium issue. He deals with it briefly on pages 5–6 in the context of critiquing the work of P.M. Bernegger, “Affirmation of Herod’s Death in 4 BCE,” Journal of Theological Studies 34 (1983), 526–531. What his objections boil down to is an insistence on looking at Josephus’ data through the lens of factual (date-specific), non-inclusive reckoning from September 2, 31 BC. For example, Bernegger (p. 529) cites Josephus’ discussion about the Roman tax registration in Syria during AD 6:

Josephus stated that the registration was completed in the thirty-seventh year after Actium. The battle of Actium took place in 31 B.C., thirty-six factual years before the completion of the Syrian registration. In this instance, Josephus counted inclusively, and without any ambiguity.

Steinmann protests, “However, Bernegger’s reasoning only works if one forgets about the date of the Battle of Actium, September 2, 31 BCE.” This reveals his Filmerian assumptions. Shelve the idea that factual, to-the-day dating matters, together with the presumption of non-inclusive year counts, and the problem vanishes. Steinmann also projects his own bias onto Bernegger when he writes, “Years after Actium commenced on September 3, not on the following January 1, as Bernegger’s calculations assume.” But as a follower of Schürer’s approach that adhered to Jewish and Roman inclusive dating conventions, Bernegger’s year count would have been inclusive, making the first year “after Actium” begin in 31 BC, not the following January. This makes 30 BC the second year after Actium, and so on until the 37th year in AD 6. Whether Bernegger used a January-to-December Julian calendar or Nisan to Adar, the inclusive approach still makes September 2 part of 31 BC rather than 30 BC. Thus, we see that Steinmann has here criticized a misrepresentation of Bernegger’s position. His so-called “Schürer consensus” increasingly resembles a convenient straw man for him to attack. It bears only passing resemblance to the actual positions of Emile Schürer and those who followed him.

The problems posed by the Battle of Actium against Filmer and Steinmann’s interpretation get worse. For example, Steinmann claimed in note 83 of his article:

The Battle of Actium [September 2, 31 BC] would have taken place at the very end of Herod’s seventh year, since Tishri can begin no earlier than September 20 and no later than October 19. In 31 BCE the Babylonians counted September 21 as the first day of Tishri (Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 BCE–AD 75 [Brown University Studies 19, Providence: Brown University, 1956] 43). This confirms that Herod started his regnal years in Tishri, not Nisan (emphasis and bracketed comment added).

But this is circular reasoning. All this statement proves is that the Battle of Actium took place in the sixth month, Elul, just before Tishri started. It does not indicate that Actium was at the very end of Herod’s seventh year, or of any year. To claim that means first assuming a Tishri-based year—the very thing Filmer and Steinmann must prove—as well as factual dating. If Nisan-based inclusive dating was used instead, Actium would still have occurred just before Tishri, but would have fallen in the middle of Herod’s seventh year. Not only does this logic fail, the claim again flies in the face of Josephus’ testimony in Antiquities that his historical records for the Jews revolved around the Nisan-based ecclesiastical calendar, not the civil calendar using a Tishri New Year. We should place priority on the source material’s own interpretation of itself, not on a modern scholar’s reinterpretation of it. If it makes good sense as written, there is no real reason to reject it.

Further to this, at http://www.nowoezone.com/NTC04.html, Kenneth Frank Doig observed:

Andrew E. Steinmann...claims that the Battle of Actium in Herod’s 7th year on September 2, 31 BCE establishes Josephus “confirms that Herod started his regnal years in Tishri, not Nisan.” However, the dating is such that it was Herod’s 7th year reckoned from either Nisan or Tishri. Because of using dating from Tishri Steinmann elsewhere says Josephus “contradicts” himself.

My own independent analysis, put into a spreadsheet long before I read Steinmann’s article, agrees with Doig’s conclusions. Whether Nisan (March/April) or Tishri (September/October) reckoning is used for the start of the year, both of these possible New Year’s dates fall squarely into the January-to-December year of 31 BC.

In the end, what “Alexander” wrote (https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/herods-death-jesus-birth-and-a-lunar-eclipse/), quoted in my last article, still applies:

Despite any counting methods that may be employed by various authors, whether Nisan to Nisan, Tishri to Tishri, or even January to January, it holds true nonetheless that if the spring of 31 BCE is his seventh year, then the spring of 32 BCE is his sixth year, the spring of 33 BCE is his fifth year, and so on, making the spring of 37 BCE his first year (emphasis added; the argument would remain true if all instances of “spring” read “fall” instead).

The Filmerian Reinterpretation of Josephus

We will now undertake a point-by-point analysis of Steinmann’s case against the “Schürer consensus.” As observed above, he repeatedly emphasizes the significance of the de jure (in law) date of Herod’s Roman appointment over the de facto (in fact) date of taking Jerusalem. This is intimated as early as page 2, right after summarizing the main points favoring the 37 BC consensus for the start of Herod’s reign:

Despite this widely held opinion that Herod reigned from 40 (37) to 4 BCE, this was neither the consensus before Schürer nor has it gone unchallenged in the last half century. Most disturbingly, the Schürer consensus assigns only thirty-six years to Herod’s reign, thirty-three of them in Jerusalem, whereas Josephus reports the figures as thirty-seven and thirty-four respectively. All early Christian sources place the birth of Jesus after Passover in 4 BCE, with most of them placing it in sometime in late 3 or early 2 BCE (emphasis added).

Concerning these comments, three observations can be made:

First, we need to be clear: Herod did not in fact reign over the Jews from 40 BC on (or 39 BC, if one follows the Filmerian reinterpretation of Josephus), but from 37 BC (36 BC per Filmer and Steinmann). The “widely held opinion”—the “Schürer consensus”—views him in 40 BC merely as king-designate, and in Roman eyes only, until the city was actually taken and placed under his control. Antigonus, as we shall see, was the king of the Jews in every measure of the word—title (including on his coins, which bore the inscription BACILE?C ANTIΓONOY (of King Antigonus), see http://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?vpar=1063), government control, residence in Jerusalem, and acceptance as king by those he ruled—from 40 BC until Herod’s siege removed him and led to his death in 37 BC. This is surely a common sense observation, but it must unfortunately be specifically pointed out, lest the complex arguments put forth by Filmer and Steinmann obscure it.

Second, Steinmann asserts that the “disturbing” Schürer consensus contradicts the figures given by Josephus for the 37 and 34 years of his reign as measured from the Roman appointment and the taking of the city respectively. Actually, what is disturbing is this misrepresentation, for no conflict with Josephus can be found. Schürer himself wrote, in his note 165:

Herod died shortly before a Passover (Antiq. xvii.9.3; Wars of the Jews, ii.1.3), therefore in March or April. Since Josephus says that he reigned thirty-seven years from the date of his appointment, thirty-four years from his conquest of Jerusalem (Antiq. xvii.8.1; Wars of the Jews, i.33.8), it would seem as if, counting thirty-seven years from the year B.C. 40, he must have died in B.C. 3. But we know that Josephus elsewhere counts a year too much, according to our reckoning…The reason of this is that he counts portions of a year as a year [i.e., he counts inclusively]; and, indeed, he probably, according to the example of the Mishna, reckons the years of the king’s reign from Nisan to Nisan. If this be so, the thirty-fourth year of Herod would begin on the 1st Nisan of the year B.C. 4, and Herod must in that case have died between 1st and 14th Nisan, since his death occurred before the Passover. That this is indeed the correct reckoning is confirmed by astronomical date, and by the chronology of the successors of Herod (bracketed comment added).

Since at this time we will not discuss the death of Herod, we will skip over the last two lines (although we agree with them), and just note that there is nothing in what Schürer wrote to conclude that he disagreed with Josephus’ 37 and 34-year figures. His reasoning is actually predicated around accepting them as written. Neither did he accuse Josephus of error, as Steinmann does (“ Thus, Josephus is in error,” p. 7) in reference to his matchup of consular and Olympiad dates. (See also page 28, “Josephus made mistakes in Antiquities 14.389, 487 when reporting the consular and Olympian dating of the beginning of Herod’s reign.” The supposition that there was a direct conflict between Josephus’ equating the consular year of Calvinus and Pollio with the 184th Olympiad is addressed under “A Closer Look at the Consular Years,” below.) On the contrary, Schürer fully accepted those numbers and sought to understand them as Josephus and the Jews did, rather than imposing modern non-inclusive dating conventions upon them. The only contradiction is not with Josephus, but with the ultimately unsupported insistence of Filmer and Steinmann on using non-inclusive rather than inclusive reckoning, and that from Tishri rather than Nisan.

Third, he states that early Christian sources place the birth of Christ after 4 BC, generally in late 3 or early 2 BC. It should be pointed out, however, that those sources are not unanimous about a specific year, which indicates they reflect not accurate records but tradition (i.e., early Church hearsay). Jack Finegan’s Handbook of Biblical Chronology (p. 291) gives several dates suggested by early sources. Although it is true that a majority are listed as 3/2 BC, it should not escape our notice that these give a date range, and there are a number of outliers. To take these reports as authoritative is to depend on unproven tradition rather than a single well-attested year. If Luke, arguably the most historically picky of the New Testament writers, did not pinpoint the year for us, nor did any of the other inspired apostles who knew Him (and His mother Mary) best, we have no objective criterion for dating Christ’s birth, only old theologians’ tales. We must conclude, therefore, that early Church tradition gives us no clear year for the Savior’s birth, and therefore no conclusive help in pinpointing the year of Herod’s death.

Reinterpreting Three Incontestable Points

Beginning on page 8 of his article, Steinmann raises several critiques against 37 BC as the start of Herod’s de facto reign. He begins by presenting three incontestable points from Antiquities 14:

- Herod’s siege of Jerusalem ended during the consular year of Agrippa and Gallus, which coincided with the 185th Olympiad, “on the third month, on the solemnity of the fast”

- The city fell 27 years after it had under Pompey, on the same day

- The last Hasmonean, Antigonus, was put to death by Antony 126 years after the Hasmonean dynasty was first set up

Steinmann first admits (p. 9) that “the consular year and Olympiad given by Josephus indicates that Herod took Jerusalem in 37 BCE.” This is objective fact. But then he immediately makes two assertions with no such firm basis: “It was the Day of Atonement (“the fast”) on 10 Tishri in the Jewish calendar, but the third month (September) in the Greek calendar” (parentheses original, emphasis added). In what Josephus wrote there is no discernible indication that Greek months entered into the picture at all, nor reason to pivot from Greek months to Jewish days: “This destruction befel the city of Jerusalem when Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls of Rome; on the hundred eighty and fifth olympiad; on the third month; on the solemnity of the fast” (Ant. 14.16.4). In the post-exilic era several Jewish months, including the third, were routinely designated by their order in the calendar rather than their Jewish names. Scripture itself demonstrates this in Esther 8:9, “in the third month (that is, the month Sivan),” where the parenthetical clarification is part of the verse, and in Ezekiel 31:1, “in the third month.” We can confidently expect Josephus followed that post-exilic convention. The parenthetical explanation in Esther 8:9 also demonstrates the standardized inclusive counting the Filmer camp denies, for Tammuz, not Sivan, would have been specified as the third month if the Jews had used actual, non-inclusive reckoning.

Steinmann’s assertions about the day and month of Jerusalem’s fall appear to arise not from what Josephus wrote, but from the Filmerian preoccupation with Tishri dating. There is no reason to suppose that Josephus, a Romanized Jew whom we already know—from his own words, no less—viewed Nisan as the first month of the year, would refer to a Greek month out of the blue, particularly without also naming it for his readers unfamiliar with Greek conventions (recall how he explained Xanthicus earlier). It also makes little sense that Josephus would flip-flop with his calendars, giving the month in Greek terms, but the day in Jewish terms. The odds are overwhelmingly against it. A straightforward understanding of the passage indicates the Jewish month of Sivan, the third month of the ecclesiastical calendar, was meant. This means “the fast” is impossible to assign to the Day of Atonement in Tishri, the seventh month. “The fast” has another more likely meaning, to be discussed later.

Steinmann then (p. 9) presents two other considerations which, he claims, “contradict” the 37 BC date indicated by both consular year and Olympiad reckoning. First, he says, the 27 years that passed after Pompey takes one to 36 BC, not 37 BC. Two problems exist here: first, he again assumes without supporting evidence that it was the Day of Atonement in Tishri, and second, he makes the further undemonstrated assumption that non-inclusive, actual dating was used. In short, he is using his (and Filmer’s) assumptions as the basis for claiming Josephus was in error, instead of trying to understand the data as Josephus understood it.

As for the second “contradiction,” Steinmann says that there is no evidence of any government by the Hasmoneans until 162 BC, therefore the 126 years had to be reckoned from 36 BC, not 37 BC. But as discussed in the previous article of this series, this overlooks the detail that Antiochus IV Epiphanes died in 163 BC, vacating the Syrian kingship over the Jews and defaulting to leaving the Hasmoneans in power. By recognizing this we can say that the Hasmonean dynasty endured for 126 years.

Three Considerations Favoring Actual, Non-Inclusive Years?

At this point in his article, it is apparent that Steinmann feels the pressure of the “Schürer consensus” against the Filmerian position he has staked out: “Nonetheless, the Schürer consensus could hold that the data given by Josephus here were reckoned by inclusive reckoning, making no conflict” (p. 10). Indeed, it not only could, but it does. But then he adds, “However, that Josephus was not using inclusive reckoning and that these data should be seen as reporting actual years is demonstrated by three more considerations” (p. 10). What are these considerations?

Supposed Conflict of the High Priest Chronology with the Consular Years

The first he owes directly to Filmer (p. 287): “Josephus also contradicts his own consular year for Herod’s conquest of Jerusalem by his chronology of the high priests.” The main assumption behind this is that Josephus used factual, to-the-day dating for the reigns of high priests, similar to the way the Romans reckoned the reigns of their emperors. But another assumption is less obvious: that Josephus’ account of Hyrcanus II and Antigonus views their “reigns” only as those of high priests, not kings. We will discuss this matter in detail below.

The Alleged Passivity of Sosius

The second consideration arises from a conflict Steinmann, again following Filmer (p. 286), sees in Dio’s Roman History, which he claims “casts doubt on the Schürer consensus that the conquest of Jerusalem occurred in 37 BCE.” Here I quote his argument in full (p. 11):

Concerning 37 BCE Dio states (49.23.1–2):

…during the following year [37 BCE] the Romans accomplished nothing worthy of note in Syria. For Antony spent the entire year reaching Italy and returning again to the province, and Sossius [sic], because anything he did would be advancing Antony’s interests rather than his own, and he therefore dreaded his jealousy and anger, spent the time in devising means, not for achieving some success and incurring his enmity, but for pleasing him without engaging in any activity (emphasis and brackets added).

Thus, Sossius would not have helped Herod—a man favored by Antony—capture Jerusalem in 37.

Rather than teaching that Sosius was entirely passive during 37 BC, the Dio passage merely tells us, and quite specifically, that the Romans accomplished nothing of note in Syria. The sense is that, lest personal successes in Syria might inadvertently offend the uninvolved Antony, Sosius likewise did nothing there. This text does not address activities Sosius might have pursued in Judea at Antony’s specific behest, however. Making the assumption that Sosius’ fear of affronting Antony paralyzed him into inactivity everywhere is entirely unwarranted. Since Dio emphasizes Sosius’ desire to please Antony, if Antony wanted him to help Herod with the siege of Jerusalem, of course he would! That is exactly what the text says in Antiquities 14.16.1: “Sosius [was] sent by Antony, to assist Herod.” The supposed problem Filmer and Steinmann see is nonexistent. Consistent with this, in Wars 1.17.2 Josephus elaborates a little further:

For after the taking of Samosata [in 38 BC], and when Antony had set Sosius over the affairs of Syria, and had given him orders to assist Herod against Antigonus, he [Herod] departed into Egypt; but Sosius sent two legions before him into Judea, to assist Herod, and followed himself soon after with the rest of his army (emphasis and brackets added).

This information is in direct conflict with the idea that Sosius “would not have helped Herod” to capture Jerusalem in 37 BC. Therefore, we can dismiss the Dio “problem” as being nothing of the sort for the “Schürer consensus.”

The Sabbatical Years

The third consideration adduced by Steinmann against a 37 BC fall of Jerusalem is tied to the Jewish sabbatical years. The sabbatical years are brought up in two places in Antiquities in conjunction with the start of Herod’s reign. Describing the siege undertaken by Sosius and Herod, Josephus records:

Now the Jews that were inclosed within the walls of the city, fought against Herod with great alacrity and zeal...and making use of brutish courage, rather than of prudent valour, they persisted in this war to the very last. And this they did while a mighty army lay round about them; and while they were distressed by famine, and the want of necessaries: for this happened to be a sabbatick year (14.16.2, emphasis added)

He continues the story in the next chapter, observing:

Nor was there any end of the miseries he [Herod] brought upon them [the defeated Jews]: and this distress was in part occasioned by the covetousness of the prince regnant [Herod was confiscating silver and gold wherever he could find them]; who was still in want of more; and in part by the sabbatick year, which was still going on, and forced the countrey to lie still uncultivated: since we are forbidden to sow our land in that year (15.1.2, emphasis and bracketed comments added).

These details give us a way to determine the year that Herod took Jerusalem, but only if we can identify with confidence at least one other post-exilic sabbatical year to synchronize with it. Once again following Filmer’s lead (pp. 289–291), Steinmann presents this argument (p. 11):

Finally, it should be noted that Herod besieged Jerusalem at the end of a Sabbatical year when food supplies were running low. This was the same situation in mid-162 BCE near the end of a sabbatical year. Thus, Tishri 163–Elul 162 was a Sabbatical year. Since the summer of 162 BCE fell during a Sabbatical year, the summer of 37 BCE could not have been a Sabbatical year. Instead, Tishri 37 BCE–Elul 36 BCE was also a Sabbatical year. Since food supplies would have been adequate at the beginning of the Sabbatical year, Jerusalem could not have fallen to Herod in Tishri 37 BCE as the Schürer consensus holds. Instead, Jerusalem fell at the beginning of the following year (Tishri 36), with the siege taking place during the summer of the Sabbatical year (summer of 36 BCE).

To begin with, I have no idea how Steinmann concluded that his “Schürer consensus” holds that Jerusalem fell to Herod in Tishri. None of the references I looked at that accept a 37 BC de facto start for the reign of Herod place the taking of Jerusalem in Tishri, but in early summer, generally the month of Sivan (June of 37 BC, cf. http://www.nowoezone.com/NTC04.html). This conclusion follows the logic that the “siege of five months” (Wars 1.18.2) began “after the rigor of winter was over” (Ant. 14.15.14) around February, and concluded in the “summer time” (Ant. 14.16.2), “in the third month” (Ant. 14.16.4) of the Nisan-based ecclesiastical calendar Josephus favors. No, those who follow Schürer do not think Jerusalem fell in Tishri.

Now, the validity of all of Steinmann’s sabbatical year reasoning, including the assertion that 163–162 BC was a sabbatical year, depends on first accepting the foundational premise of a Tishri-based, actual/accession-year/non-inclusive dating scheme, and then presuming on the accuracy of the sabbatical year determinations made by Ben Zion Wacholder (“The Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles During the Second Temple and the Early Rabbinic Period,” Hebrew Union College Annual 44 [1973], 153–193). Quite possibly under the influence of Filmer’s 1966 article, Wacholder decided to revisit the careful earlier study done by Benedict Zuckermann (Treatise on the Sabbatical Cycle and the Jubilee, translated by A. Löwy from the German original of 1856), and concluded Zuckermann’s dates for the sabbatical years were a year too early. Of particular note is that he concluded that 37-36 BC, Tishri through Elul, was a sabbatical year, aligning it with Filmer’s date for Herod taking Jerusalem.

So, which is more accurate for the post-exilic period, the sabbatical year determination of Wacholder, or the one by Zuckermann? A detailed discussion of the issues involved is given in a Wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Sabbatical_Years) that references the work of many acknowledged authorities, such as Parker and Dubberstein, Edwin Thiele, and Jack Finegan. It also draws on the work of ABR's Dr. Bryant Wood and several ABR Associates, including biblical chronologist Rodger Young and Dr. Douglas Petrovich. After acknowledging that the geonim (medieval Jewish scholars) and the modern state of Israel follow Zuckermann’s approach, this significant admission seems to be depreciated in favor of a sympathetic focus on Steinmann’s views favoring Wacholder. Arguments are also presented there based on the Seder Olam in support of Wacholder’s dates, but they are ultimately rendered indecisive by translation uncertainties. Their uncertainty is compounded by the fact that the Talmud demonstrates that even the leading rabbis could not agree on when the sabbatical years after the Second Temple should be observed (for example, see the convoluted discussion given in Mas Arachin 12a–12b, http://halakhah.com/pdf/kodoshim/Arachin.pdf). Without a solid, objective basis for translating its problem passages bearing on the sabbatical years, the Seder Olam provides no conclusive help in choosing between the approaches of Zuckermann and Wacholder. We must look elsewhere for a basis to make the choice.

I believe we find this basis in the detailed analysis of sabbatical year evidences of Wacholder and Zuckermann presented by Bob Pickle. The above-cited Wikipedia article is incomplete without considering the balanced treatment Pickle sets forth (as well as Blosser’s study, see below), which would help readers better appreciate why, as the Wikipedia article admits, “there are many prominent scholars who still maintain a cycle consistent with Zuckermann’s conclusion of a 38/37 BCE Sabbatical year.” Pickle’s two online articles, “When Were the Sabbatical Years?” (http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/sabbatical-years.htm) and “Which Years Were the Sabbatical Years?” (http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/sabbatical-years-more.htm), are of such high quality, they should have been published in a scholarly journal. Here we merely summarize some of their key points.

Wacholder had presented ten lines of evidence for his sabbatical year determinations, and Pickle bases his study on them. They are:

The Pledge of Nehemiah 10:31
Alexander’s Grant of Tax Exemption
Judah Maccabee’s Defeat at Beth-Zur
Simon’s Murder
Herod’s Conquest of Jerusalem
Herod Agrippa’s Reading of the Law
Note of Indebtedness from Nero’s Reign
Destruction of Second Temple
Land Contracts of Bar Kochba
Tombstones from Zoar

For each of these topics Pickle examines the data, contrasts how the Zuckermann and Wacholder approaches deal with it, and draws conclusions about which does a better job at explaining the data. In his Introduction he asks, “So which proposal is correct? First of all, why does it matter? It matters because this question is pertinent to a study of the 70 w

           NATO's top general visits candidate member Macedonia       Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
SKOPJE, Macedonia (AP) - NATO's top military officer is visiting Macedonia, which hopes to join the alliance once a landmark deal with neighboring Greece to...
          Mortarmen Conduct Training in Macedonia      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
KRIVOLAK TRAINING AREA, Macedonia - U.S. Army mortarmen got the unique opportunity to hone their skills on their weapons at the Krivolak Training Area in Macedonia this month.
          Army of the Republic of Macedonia Hosts U.S. Aerial and Mounted Gunnery      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
KRIVOLAK TRAINING AREA, Republic of Macedonia - The Army of the Republic of Macedonia (ARM) began August with assistance and observation of aerial and ground gunnery training by two units under the command of U.S. Army Europe at the Krivolak Training Area (KTA) in the Republic of Macedonia.
          FYR Macedonia U-18 - Switzerland U-18      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Handball. European U-18 Championship B / Men.
          Norway U-16 - FYR Macedonia U-16      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Basketball. European Championship U-16 B
          NATO’s top general visits candidate member Macedonia      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

NATO's top military officer is visiting Macedonia, which hopes to join the alliance once a deal with neighboring Greece to rename itself "North Macedonia" is fully implemented

The post NATO’s top general visits candidate member Macedonia appeared first on FederalNewsRadio.com.


          Menu | Scene of Istanbul, Monday March 5, 1900      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Mavi Boncuk | 

DINNER held by HAMBURG-AMERIKA LINIE [1] AT "SCHNELLDAMPFER /SPEED SHIP" AUGUSTE VICTORIA [2]. 

This menu offered possibly in Istanbul,  Monday March 5, 1900 is not from the maiden voyage but in a successive one.

Menu indicates fried Smyrna fish and butter sauce. Breton style lamb roast, Macedonian style fried kidneys, Artichokes Hollandaise, Roast of turkey. 

Musical program includeed as a waltz music from "The Sultan of Mocha".[3]







[1] The Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien-Gesellschaft (HAPAG for short, often referred to in English as Hamburg America Line (sometimes also Hamburg-American Line, Hamburg-Amerika Linie or Hamburg Line); literally Hamburg American Packet-shipping Joint-stock company) was a transatlantic shipping enterprise established in Hamburg, Germany, in 1847. Among those involved in its development were prominent citizens such as Albert Ballin (Director General), Adolph Godeffroy, Ferdinand Laeisz, Carl Woermann, August Bolten and others, and its main financial backers were Berenberg Bank and H. J. Merck & Co. It soon developed into the largest German, and at times the world's largest, shipping company, serving the market created by the German immigration to the United States and later immigration from Eastern Europe. On 1 September 1970, after 123 years of independent existence, HAPAG merged with the Bremen-based North German Lloyd to form Hapag-Lloyd AG.In the early years, the Hamburg America Line exclusively connected European ports with North American ports, such as Hoboken, New Jersey, or New Orleans, Louisiana. With time, however, the company established lines to all continents. The company built a large ocean liner terminal at Cuxhaven, Germany, in 1900. Connected directly to Hamburg by a dedicated railway line and station, the HAPAG Terminal at Cuxhaven served as the major departure point for German and European immigrants to North America until 1969 when ocean liner travel ceased. 

 [2] Albert Ballin [*](15 August 1857 – 9 November 1918) was a German shipping magnate, who was the general director of the Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien-Gesellschaft (HAPAG) or Hamburg-America Line, at times the world's largest shipping company. Being the inventor of the concept of the cruise ship, he is known as the father of modern cruise ship travel.

Augusta Victoria, later Auguste Victoria, placed in service in 1889 and named for Empress Augusta Victoria, wife of German Emperor Wilhelm II, was the name ship of the Augusta Victoria series and the first of a new generation of luxury Hamburg America Line ocean liners. She was the first European liner with twin propellers and when first placed in service, the fastest liner in the Atlantic trade. Off-season pleasure cruises were therefore started in 1891, and Augusta Victoria's cruise in the Mediterranean and the Near East from 22 January to 22 March 1891, with 241 passengers including the Ballins themselves (Albert Ballin and his wife Marianne), is often stated to have been the first ever cruise. 


  • The Mediterranean ports of call included Genoa, Alexandria, Jaffa, Beirut, Constantinople (now Istanbul), Athens, Malta, Naples, and Lisbon.
  • When the Augusta Victoria returned home after its two-month voyage, the cruise was judged a great success.
  • Every year since then (except for periods of war), Hapag and other lines have offered similar cruises.
Christian Wilhelm Allers published an illustrated account of it as Backschisch (Baksheesh). However, the British Orient Line had offered cruises in the late 1880s.

In 1897, the ship was rebuilt and lengthened and in 1904 she was sold to the Imperial Russian Navy, which renamed her Kuban

[*] As a Jew in Hamburg and German society, Ballin was subject to the anti-Semitic prejudices of the time. However, because of his important position with Hapag, not even Kaiser Wilhelm II (1859-1941) could ignore him. In fact, he often met with the Jewish shipowner to discuss the political and financial aspects of Germany’s seafaring industry.

The Kaiser was such a frequent guest at Ballin’s Hamburg villa, that it was known a bit scornfully as “Klein Potsdam” or “Little Potsdam.” (Potsdam being the site of the Prussian royal palaces, just south of Berlin.)

Some sources claim that Ballin was the only non-converted Jew with whom the Kaiser had a personal relationship. Although they were never close friends, they had a cordial relationship.



Before his own suicide in 1918, Albert Ballin’s older brother, Joseph, had taken his own life rather dramatically almost exactly 11 years earlier. The New York Times and other American newspapers carried the story, dated November 13, 1907: “J. Ballin, a stockbroker and a brother of Albert Ballin, …committed suicide with a revolver this afternoon in a lavatory at the local Bourse [in Hamburg].” No reason was known. 


Nor do we know exactly why Albert Ballin ended his own life. But a combination of factors came together in 1918 that probably overwhelmed the shipping magnate. A war he had been against from the start was coming to a very bad end for Germany. The Kaiser, who had once been his confidant, refused to speak to him anymore and was about to abdicate his throne. Ballin was now considered a pacifist traitor by his government and many Germans. The war had destroyed Hapag, and it would be years before it could even partially recover.



[3]The Sultan of Mocha" (1874) a comic opera in 3 acts.Music by Alfred Cellier (1844-1891) Libretto by Albert Jarret and W. Lestocq. It was first produced at the Prince's Theatre, Manchester between 16 November and 19 December, 1874, a run of 30 performances. SOURCE
          The C.O.W.S. w/ On Psychopaths with Sam Vaknin (Macedonia)      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
The Context of White Supremacy welcomes Sam Vaknin live from Macedonia. Mr. Vaknin is a White man and an admitted narcissist. He authored the text, Malignant Self Love: Narcissism Revisited. Mr. Vaknin was also the subject of Ian Walker's documentary film, I Psychopath. Vaknin has been to prison, has made and lost fortunes, and seems to take pride in admitting his lack of empathy for others. We'll see how much of psychopathic behavior parallels the collective, predatory behavior of Whites. We'll ask him to explain his concept of false modesty and what he looks for in potential vulnerable victims. We'll also ask about his suggestions for things to avoid with a potential psychopath. Gus is excited to discuss Dr. Vaknin's conclusion that Pres. Barack Obama exhibits clinical narcissism - this could be projection as whites are prone to deflecting their own pathologies. [The C.O.W.S. archives: http://tiny.cc/76f6p] CALL IN NUMBER: 760.569.7676 CODE 564943# SKYPE: FREECONFERENCECALLHD.7676 CODE 564943# Invest in The COWS - http://tiny.cc/ledjb
          Σχόλιο στο Η Ρωσία χτυπά “ασύμμετρα” και πάντα δύο φορές: Βαθιά τραύματα και εκατέρωθεν καχυποψία από macedonianancestry      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Reblogged στις <a href="https://macedonianancestry.wordpress.com/2018/08/09/%ce%b7-%cf%81%cf%89%cf%83%ce%af%ce%b1-%cf%87%cf%84%cf%85%cf%80%ce%ac-%ce%b1%cf%83%cf%8d%ce%bc%ce%bc%ce%b5%cf%84%cf%81%ce%b1-%ce%ba%ce%b1%ce%b9-%cf%80%ce%ac%ce%bd%cf%84%ce%b1-%ce%b4/" rel="nofollow">Macedonian Ancestry</a>.
          Un partid grec ameninţă că se va retrage din Guvern dacă Parlamentul va vota acordul cu Macedonia      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Ministrul grec al Apărării Panos Kammenos a ameninţat că îşi va retrage membrii partidului ANEL din Guvern dacă acordul privind numele fostei republici iugoslave va fi votată în Parlament, relatează site-ul EUObserver.com.
          Border Police: Heavy Traffic of Trucks Exiting Bulgaria at Kulata, Kapitan Andreevo and Danube Bridge – Ruse Checkpoints      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Sofia. There is heavy traffic of trucks exiting Bulgaria at Kulata, Kapitan Andreevo and Danube Bridge – Ruse checkpoints, Border Police told Focus News Agency. Traffic at the borders with Serbia and Macedonia is normal....
          EPISODE54 - Women of OpenStack Program #1      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
This podcast recording is with Jovanka Gulicoska from Macedonia who received a scholarship.
          "This is not some bleeding-heart sentiment: it is a historical fact. Throughout history, we have seen..."      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
“This is not some bleeding-heart sentiment: it is a historical fact. Throughout history, we have seen over and over the concentration of wealth leading to societal collapse. Conversely, we have seen the greatest and/or most powerful nations arise in conditions of economic equality. Athens after Solon, early Rome, the Macedonians under Alexander, the Vikings, the Mongol armies under Ghengis Khan, the French after the Revolution — all these societies enjoyed a burst of enthusiasm and energy due to the egalitarian conditions they created. The Arabic historian Ibn Khaldun called it asabiyah, the energy of egalitarianism. It is one of the fundamental laws of history.”

- A New Economy
          El fútbol como inversión: estos equipos de fútbol cotizan en bolsa       Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

El Futbol Como Inversion Estos Equipos De Futbol Cotizan En Bolsa

Aunque mucho de los aficionados del fútbol no lo crean, la realidad es que el fútbol hace tiempo que se ha convertido en un negocio. Cierto es que quedan algunas excepciones, clubes cuya prioridad es deportiva, o jugadores que se mueven más por los colores que por el dinero. Pero, en general, la gran mayoría del mercado de fútbol se mueve por intereses puramente económicos.

Como consecuencia de este afán de codicia económica, algunas de las entidades deportivas cierran fichajes con miras a una determinada rentabilidad financiera y multimillonarios (jeques, magnates del petróleo, promotores inmobiliarios o especuladores), se dan el capricho de comprarse participaciones de un determinado club.

Nos podemos preguntar: ¿Qué clubes están cotizando actualmente en bolsa? ¿Hay algún equipo español que haya dado el paso a los parquets bursátiles?

En 2002 se creó el índice STOXX Europe Football

El gran volumen de dinero que mueve el fútbol resultan demasiado jugosas tanto para las grandes empresas de telecomunicaciones, que viven de la guerra existente por hacerse los derechos de retransmisión. No son los únicos que quiere explotarlo, hasta Amazon va a hacer emisión de partidos de fútbol.

La relación del fútbol y la bolsa no es nada nuevo, de hecho, el primer club de fútbol que cotiza en bolsa lo hace desde el 1983. El primer club que se lanzó a la bolsa fue un club británico, Tottenham Hotspur.

Tuvieron que pasar alrededor de 2 décadas hasta que se creara el STOXX Europe Football en 2002. El STOXX Europe Footballl es un índice que incluye a los clubs europeos y los clubs turcos que cotizan en bolsa.

En este índice se especula con los resultados de los diferentes equipos, pero lo que manda es la oferta y la demanda, igual que pasa en el resto de mercados, curiosamente los clubs de fútbol influyen en ellos.

El fútbol una inversión entre las conductas y acciones carentes de lógica

Nos guste o no el fútbol, lo podemos considerar un deporte con perspectiva financiera. De esta manera, como en cualquier inversión, debemos fijarnos en la rentabilidad que nos puede dar. Hasta aquí es como haríamos con cualquier empresa a la hora de invertir.

La gran problema que nos podemos encontrar dentro del fútbol y es uno de grandes detonantes, es la gran pasión que desata entre sus aficionados, comparable a los circos romanos. Por tanto, los cubes de fútbol son objeto de conductas y acciones carentes de una lógica, como es el caso de divinificar a Maradona, estos hechos se pueden trasladar al ámbito de la inversión.

A muchos ciudadanos les pasa que su felicidad se basa en si su equipo logra la victoria durante esa semana, y, además, le haga ganar dinero. Actuar de esta manera puede ser muy chocante, hasta llegar al absurdo para las personas a las que no les gusta este deporte, pero también en el mundo de la inversión, como en la vida misma, hay de todo en la viña del señor.

¿Qué clubes de fútbol están cotizando actualmente en bolsa?

Un club de fútbol que este en un mercado bursátil, resulta bastante raro y extraordinario. Sólo 20 y otras 2 entidades deportivas, las 2 que aparecen al final de la lista cotizan en el STOXX Europe Football. Los clubs de fútbol que cotizan son los siguientes:

  • Italia: Juventus, Roma y Lazio.
  • Francia: Olympique de Lyon.
  • Reino Unido: Celtic de Glasgow y Borussia Dortmund.
  • Portugal: Sporting de Lisboa, Oporto y Sporting de Braga.
  • Turquía: Galatasaray, Besiktas, Fenerbahce y Trabzonspor.
  • Holanda: Ajax.
  • Dinamarca: Brondby, AGF, Silkeborg, Aalborg Boldspilklub y Parken Sport & Entertainment (estadio).
  • Suecia: AIK Football.
  • Polonia: Ruch Chorzow.
  • Macedonia: Teteks ad tetovo (retail).

Estas 20 entidades no son las únicas presentes en la bolsa, ya que otras cotizan en mercados distintos del STOXX Europe Football. Por el ejemplo, el Arsenal está en compra y venta a través de su holding de empresas, Tottehnham Hotspur cotiza en Reino Unido y el Manchester United cotiza en Estados Unidos.

Viendo lo activos que están los clubes de la liga inglesa en el ámbito financiero no es raro que la Premier League este triplicando en rentabilidad del fútbol español, como se ve ninguno de nuestros clubes todavía están cotizando en bolsa.

En 2018 es más rentable invertir en STOXX Europe Football que en el IBEX35

Dejando un lado las pasiones y preferencias por uno u otro club, estamos analizando la inversión de que está dando más rentabilidad.

Sale más a cuenta invertir más en fútbol que en el IBEX 35, ya que el STOXX acumula una caída del 5,67 por ciento durante el 2018, mientras que el IBEX acumula una caída del 8,19 por ciento.

No obstante, si decidimos invertir en STOXX Europe Football, debemos tener en cuenta que sus activos no tienen mucha liquidez y que son bastante volátiles, dada su naturaleza. Debemos tener en cuenta que el STOXX Europe Footbal ha sufrido un 30 por ciento de subidas durante el 2010, pero cayó en 2011 un 40 por ciento.

De momento no tenemos ningún club español que este cotizando en bolsa

No hay ningún club de la Liga del Fútbol Profesional (LFP) que hay salido a los parquets bursátiles, por el momento. En este sentido, la ausencia en bolsa de los equipos españoles porque se exigen 3 años de beneficios para poder hacerlo.

Los clubes españoles han salido recientemente de un proceso de saneamiento motivado, en parte, por la crisis financiera. Otra alternativa se podría encontrar en que los fondos de inversión entraran en el mercado del fútbol español.

Athletic de Bilbao, Osasuna, Barcelona y Real Madrid son los únicos que se mantienen como clubes deportivos, mientras que el resto tienen el estatus de la sociedades anónimas deportivas (SAD).

Esta diferencia, que puede parecer que no tenga un significado muy relevante, supone, de entrada, que la propiedad de los 4 clubes recae sobre los socios, pero, además, que tributan por un tipo inferior en el impuesto de sociedades. Esa diferenciación ha provocado incluso inspecciones de la Unión Europea por considerar que implica ventajas fiscales indirectas.

Con todo, el hecho de que estos clubes no son SAD y podrían tener ciertos efectos en caso de salidas a bolsa pero, sobre todo, probablemente frenaría, una posible intervención de los fondos de inversión.

En El Blog Salmón | ¿Por qué el fútbol europeo es tan interesante para el capital extranjero?

Imagen | Flickr

También te recomendamos

¿Eres capaz de saber si el artista es una máquina o una persona? Haz la prueba

Verdades y mentiras sobre las subvenciones y el IVA del cine

Medidas para frenar las subidas de los alquileres

-
La noticia El fútbol como inversión: estos equipos de fútbol cotizan en bolsa fue publicada originalmente en El Blog Salmón por Raúl Jaime Maestre .


          Discursos II – Isócrates      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Isócrates vivió casi cien años (436-338 a. C.); era niño cuando empezó la Guerra del Peloponeso, durante el gobierno de Pericles, y asistió a la derrota de los atenienses en Queronea ante Filipo de Macedonia. Tal vez fue discípulo de Gorgias y conoció a Sócrates, escuchó a algunos de los grandes sofistas y los fogosos discursos de Demóstenes contra Filipo; a su muerte Atenas había perdido la hegemonía política y se hallaba bajo el caudillaje militar del monarca de Macedonia..

          Aspettative      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Expectations - Bebe Rexha (2018)

Debutto sulla lunga distanza di Bleta Bebe Rexha, giovane produttrice, songwriter e cantante statunitense di Brooklyn, New York, ma, come si può facilmente intuire dal nome, proveniente da una famiglia di chiare origini albanesi (il padre è nato a Debar, quando ancora apparteneva alla ex Jugoslavia, oggi nella Repubblica della Macedonia del Nord, la madre è nata negli USA da una famiglia emigrata da Gostivar, altra cittadina una volta appartenente alla Jugoslavia, oggi alla Repubblica della Macedonia del Nord, entrambe situate vicino al confine con l'Albania, ed entrambe a larga maggioranza etnica albanese). Ha scritto canzoni per Eminem e Rihanna, Selena Gomez, Iggy Azalea, Nick Jonas, David Guetta, Tinashe, e poi si è messa in proprio. Il suo genere è a cavallo del pop, dell'RnB, e della dance elettronica. E' vero che forse esagera con l'auto-tune, ed è un peccato perché mi pare abbia una bella voce, ma a scrivere canzoni ci sa fare, ed il disco è un gioiellino pop. Ospiti Quavo, Tory Lanez e i Florida Georgia Line.



Long-distance debut by Bleta Bebe Rexha, a young producer, songwriter and American singer from Brooklyn, New York, but, as you can easily guess from the name, coming from a family of clear Albanian origins (the father was born in Debar, when still belonged to the former Yugoslavia, today in the Republic of Northern Macedonia, the mother was born in the USA from a family emigrated from Gostivar, another town once belonging to Yugoslavia, today to the Republic of Northern Macedonia, both located near the border with the Albania, and both with a large ethnic Albanian majority). She wrote songs for Eminem and Rihanna, Selena Gomez, Iggy Azalea, Nick Jonas, David Guetta, Tinashe, and then set up on her own. Its genre straddles pop, RNB, and electronic dance. It's true that maybe she exaggerates with auto-tune, and it's a shame because I think she has a nice voice, but she's pretty good at writing songs, and the album is a little pop jewel. Guests Quavo, Tory Lanez and the Florida Georgia Line.
          El fútbol como inversión: estos equipos de fútbol cotizan en bolsa       Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

El Futbol Como Inversion Estos Equipos De Futbol Cotizan En Bolsa

Aunque mucho de los aficionados del fútbol no lo crean, la realidad es que el fútbol hace tiempo que se ha convertido en un negocio. Cierto es que quedan algunas excepciones, clubes cuya prioridad es deportiva, o jugadores que se mueven más por los colores que por el dinero. Pero, en general, la gran mayoría del mercado de fútbol se mueve por intereses puramente económicos.

Como consecuencia de este afán de codicia económica, algunas de las entidades deportivas cierran fichajes con miras a una determinada rentabilidad financiera y multimillonarios (jeques, magnates del petróleo, promotores inmobiliarios o especuladores), se dan el capricho de comprarse participaciones de un determinado club.

Nos podemos preguntar: ¿Qué clubes están cotizando actualmente en bolsa? ¿Hay algún equipo español que haya dado el paso a los parquets bursátiles?

En 2002 se creó el índice STOXX Europe Football

El gran volumen de dinero que mueve el fútbol resultan demasiado jugosas tanto para las grandes empresas de telecomunicaciones, que viven de la guerra existente por hacerse los derechos de retransmisión. No son los únicos que quiere explotarlo, hasta Amazon va a hacer emisión de partidos de fútbol.

La relación del fútbol y la bolsa no es nada nuevo, de hecho, el primer club de fútbol que cotiza en bolsa lo hace desde el 1983. El primer club que se lanzó a la bolsa fue un club británico, Tottenham Hotspur.

Tuvieron que pasar alrededor de 2 décadas hasta que se creara el STOXX Europe Football en 2002. El STOXX Europe Footballl es un índice que incluye a los clubs europeos y los clubs turcos que cotizan en bolsa.

En este índice se especula con los resultados de los diferentes equipos, pero lo que manda es la oferta y la demanda, igual que pasa en el resto de mercados, curiosamente los clubs de fútbol influyen en ellos.

El fútbol una inversión entre las conductas y acciones carentes de lógica

Nos guste o no el fútbol, lo podemos considerar un deporte con perspectiva financiera. De esta manera, como en cualquier inversión, debemos fijarnos en la rentabilidad que nos puede dar. Hasta aquí es como haríamos con cualquier empresa a la hora de invertir.

La gran problema que nos podemos encontrar dentro del fútbol y es uno de grandes detonantes, es la gran pasión que desata entre sus aficionados, comparable a los circos romanos. Por tanto, los cubes de fútbol son objeto de conductas y acciones carentes de una lógica, como es el caso de divinificar a Maradona, estos hechos se pueden trasladar al ámbito de la inversión.

A muchos ciudadanos les pasa que su felicidad se basa en si su equipo logra la victoria durante esa semana, y, además, le haga ganar dinero. Actuar de esta manera puede ser muy chocante, hasta llegar al absurdo para las personas a las que no les gusta este deporte, pero también en el mundo de la inversión, como en la vida misma, hay de todo en la viña del señor.

¿Qué clubes de fútbol están cotizando actualmente en bolsa?

Un club de fútbol que este en un mercado bursátil, resulta bastante raro y extraordinario. Sólo 20 y otras 2 entidades deportivas, las 2 que aparecen al final de la lista cotizan en el STOXX Europe Football. Los clubs de fútbol que cotizan son los siguientes:

  • Italia: Juventus, Roma y Lazio.
  • Francia: Olympique de Lyon.
  • Reino Unido: Celtic de Glasgow y Borussia Dortmund.
  • Portugal: Sporting de Lisboa, Oporto y Sporting de Braga.
  • Turquía: Galatasaray, Besiktas, Fenerbahce y Trabzonspor.
  • Holanda: Ajax.
  • Dinamarca: Brondby, AGF, Silkeborg, Aalborg Boldspilklub y Parken Sport & Entertainment (estadio).
  • Suecia: AIK Football.
  • Polonia: Ruch Chorzow.
  • Macedonia: Teteks ad tetovo (retail).

Estas 20 entidades no son las únicas presentes en la bolsa, ya que otras cotizan en mercados distintos del STOXX Europe Football. Por el ejemplo, el Arsenal está en compra y venta a través de su holding de empresas, Tottehnham Hotspur cotiza en Reino Unido y el Manchester United cotiza en Estados Unidos.

Viendo lo activos que están los clubes de la liga inglesa en el ámbito financiero no es raro que la Premier League este triplicando en rentabilidad del fútbol español, como se ve ninguno de nuestros clubes todavía están cotizando en bolsa.

En 2018 es más rentable invertir en STOXX Europe Football que en el IBEX35

Dejando un lado las pasiones y preferencias por uno u otro club, estamos analizando la inversión de que está dando más rentabilidad.

Sale más a cuenta invertir más en fútbol que en el IBEX 35, ya que el STOXX acumula una caída del 5,67 por ciento durante el 2018, mientras que el IBEX acumula una caída del 8,19 por ciento.

No obstante, si decidimos invertir en STOXX Europe Football, debemos tener en cuenta que sus activos no tienen mucha liquidez y que son bastante volátiles, dada su naturaleza. Debemos tener en cuenta que el STOXX Europe Footbal ha sufrido un 30 por ciento de subidas durante el 2010, pero cayó en 2011 un 40 por ciento.

De momento no tenemos ningún club español que este cotizando en bolsa

No hay ningún club de la Liga del Fútbol Profesional (LFP) que hay salido a los parquets bursátiles, por el momento. En este sentido, la ausencia en bolsa de los equipos españoles porque se exigen 3 años de beneficios para poder hacerlo.

Los clubes españoles han salido recientemente de un proceso de saneamiento motivado, en parte, por la crisis financiera. Otra alternativa se podría encontrar en que los fondos de inversión entraran en el mercado del fútbol español.

Athletic de Bilbao, Osasuna, Barcelona y Real Madrid son los únicos que se mantienen como clubes deportivos, mientras que el resto tienen el estatus de la sociedades anónimas deportivas (SAD).

Esta diferencia, que puede parecer que no tenga un significado muy relevante, supone, de entrada, que la propiedad de los 4 clubes recae sobre los socios, pero, además, que tributan por un tipo inferior en el impuesto de sociedades. Esa diferenciación ha provocado incluso inspecciones de la Unión Europea por considerar que implica ventajas fiscales indirectas.

Con todo, el hecho de que estos clubes no son SAD y podrían tener ciertos efectos en caso de salidas a bolsa pero, sobre todo, probablemente frenaría, una posible intervención de los fondos de inversión.

En El Blog Salmón | ¿Por qué el fútbol europeo es tan interesante para el capital extranjero?

Imagen | Flickr


          #bulgaria - eraslanbakirr      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
#eraslanbakirr #handmade #orijinal #argentina #armenia #azerbaijan #algeria #austria #brazil #bulgaria #belgium #bosnia #cuba #denmark #england #germany #kyrgyzstan #kazakhstan #lebanon #mexico #macedonia #morocco #netherlands #newzealand #poland #paris #portugal #russia
          Alfa TV Macedonia      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Streaming online Alfa TV Macedonia, channel News Live Streaming
          Greece decries Russia's tit-for-tat move to expel diplomats      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Russia accused of 'arbitrary' expulsion of embassy employees as row which began over Macedonia name dispute deepens.
          European corruption watchdog calls Macedonia 'disappointing'      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
SKOPJE, Macedonia— The Council of Europe's anti-corruption group says Macedonia's performance on preventing corruption is "clearly disappointing," and is calling on authorities to take action. It said Prime Minister Zoran Zaev should know the country "would not get into NATO and the EU" unless it tackles crime and corruption. After Macedonia signed a deal with...
          European corruption watchdog calls Macedonia ‘disappointing’      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

SKOPJE, Macedonia (AP) — The Council of Europe’s anti-corruption group says Macedonia’s performance on preventing corruption is “clearly disappointing,” and is calling on authorities to take action. A compliance report by the GRECO group Thursday noted Macedonia “made no substantial progress” in implementing recommendations made over four years ago on preventing corruption among parliament members, […]
          Russia to ban imports of fruit from Serbia, Macedonia from Aug. 15      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Russia plans to impose a temporary import ban on some fruit from Serbia and Macedonia from Aug. 15 over safety concerns, Russia's food safety regulator said on Friday.

          Greece decries Russia's tit-for-tat move to expel diplomats      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Russia accused of 'arbitrary' expulsion of embassy employees as row which began over Macedonia name dispute deepens.
          European corruption watchdog calls Macedonia 'disappointing'      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
SKOPJE, Macedonia (AP) — The Council of Europe's anti-corruption group says Macedonia's performance on preventing corruption is "clearly disappointing," and is calling on authorities to take action.A compliance report by the GRECO...
          The New Era 0 0 1 2      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
The New Era 0 0 1 2
-Added Macedonia, S Korea and N Korea -Added English localisation up to 800th State -No Fascists anymore -Carelia and Sakhalin are Russian -Fixed Malaya States -Fixed Baltic Focuses and Events -Fixed made by myself bug in Latvian focuses, so they came 50% neutral, 50% communism
          000      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

antaniaceramica218 posted a photo:

000

Antania Ceramica is a leading manufacturer ,supplier and exporter of Digital Wall Tiles , Polished Porcelain Tile , Slim Slab Porcelain Tile, ceramic tiles and sanitary ware and export to Latvia, Greece, Albania, Kosovo, Panama, Cosartla, Sanfrancisco, Russia, Macedonia, Colombia,Vietnam,Thailand, Cambodia, Australia. visit: antaniaceramica.com/


          Comentariu la Moscova interzice importul de fructe din Serbia și Macedonia de bogdan      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
"pretenii"
          Comentariu la Moscova interzice importul de fructe din Serbia și Macedonia de bogdan      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Acum constata si Serbia cine ii sunt "proetenii" !
          Greece decries Russia’s tit-for-tat move to expel diplomats      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

Russia accused of ‘arbitrary’ expulsion of embassy employees as row which began over Macedonia name dispute deepens.

The post Greece decries Russia’s tit-for-tat move to expel diplomats appeared first on RocketNews | Top News Stories From Around the Globe.


          Officials reportedly worked behind Trump's back to get NATO agreement done before his arrival      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

National Security Adviser John Bolton demanded that officials finalize the North Atlantic Treaty Organization agreement before President Trump arrived in Brussels for last month's NATO summit, U.S. and European officials told The New York Times.

In June, Bolton had Kay Bailey Hutchison, the American ambassador to NATO, let the other members know that Bolton wanted the communiqué completed before Trump landed in Europe, five officials said. In June, Trump refused to sign a joint communiqué with the other G7 leaders, and afraid that he might do the same thing in Brussels, all the NATO countries agreed to have the declaration finished by July 6 at 10 p.m. local time.

Two senior European officials told the Times that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary James Mattis also wanted to avoid a repeat of the G7 fiasco, and the NATO declaration was finished ahead of schedule, establishing an Atlantic Command post and extending an invitation to Macedonia to join. When Trump did arrive in Brussels, he was shown only "broad outlines," not the entire 23-page document, the Times reports.


          European corruption watchdog calls Macedonia ‘disappointing’      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
SKOPJE, Macedonia (AP) — The Council of Europe’s anti-corruption group says Macedonia’s performance on preventing corruption is “clearly disappointing,” and is calling on authorities to take action. A compliance report by the GRECO group Thursday noted Macedonia “...
          European corruption watchdog calls Macedonia ‘disappointing’      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

SKOPJE, Macedonia (AP) — Macedonia’s performance on preventing corruption is “clearly disappointing,” the Council of Europe’s anti-corruption group has said, calling on authorities to take action. A compliance report by the GRECO group Thursday noted Macedonia “made no substantial progress” in implementing recommendations made over four years ago on preventing corruption among parliament members, judges […]
          Cheap flights from Belgium to Republic of Macedonia from only €19.98!      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Cheap flights to Republic of Macedonia!
          Ποια “Βόρεια Μακεδονία”; Τα προκλητικά επιχειρήματα Ζάεφ που αποκαλύπτουν το μέγεθος της εθνικής μας ήττας!      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Στην ιστοσελίδα της κυβέρνησης της πΓΔΜ αναρτήθηκε φύλλο πληροφοριών (Fact Sheet) σχετικά με τη Συμφωνία των Πρεσπών για την επίλυση του θέματος της ονομασίας.

Αναδημοσίευση από: thepresident.gr

Σε αυτό περιλαμβάνονται δέκα επιχειρήματα υπέρ της Συμφωνίας, τα οποία εκτιμάται ότι θα αποτελέσουν στην παρούσα φάση τον κεντρικό πυρήνα της εκστρατείας της κυβέρνησης της πΓΔΜ ενόψει του δημοψηφίσματος που θα διεξαχθεί στις 30 Σεπτεμβρίου με ερώτημα «Είστε υπέρ της ένταξης στην ΕΕ και στο ΝΑΤΟ με αποδοχή της Συμφωνίας μεταξύ της “Δημοκρατίας της Μακεδονίας” και της Ελληνικής Δημοκρατίας;».

Υπενθυμίζεται ότι η επίσημη εκστρατεία ενόψει του δημοψηφίσματος ξεκινά στις 10 Σεπτεμβρίου.

Το φύλλο πληροφοριών που αναρτήθηκε στην ιστοσελίδα της κυβέρνησης της πΓΔΜ έχει ως εξής:

ΣΤΟΙΧΕΙΑ ΓΙΑ ΤΗ ΣΥΜΦΩΝΙΑ

1. Συμφωνία για το “μακεδονικό” μέλλον

Η “μακεδονο”-ελληνική συμφωνία είναι από ιστορική άποψη η καλύτερη και δίκαιη ευκαιρία για τους πολίτες της “Μακεδονίας”. Η Συμφωνία συνιστά συνεισφορά στο “μακεδονικό” μέλλον. Με αυτήν καθαρίζουμε τον δρόμο της χώρας μας για ένταξη στο ΝΑΤΟ και έναρξη διαπραγματεύσεων με την ΕΕ. Γινόμαστε μέλος των οικογενειών του ΝΑΤΟ και της ΕΕ, των εθνών που απολαμβάνουν ισχυρή οικονομική ανάπτυξη. Με τη Συμφωνία φέρνουμε καλύτερη ζωή για όλους τους πολίτες και διαφυλάσσουμε την πλούσια ιστορική και πολιτιστική κληρονομιά που δόξασε το “μακεδονικό” μας έθνος.

2. Η “μακεδονική” ταυτότητα προστατεύεται

Η Συμφωνία εγγυάται το δικαίωμα να προσδιοριζόμαστε ως “ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΕΣ” (σ.σ. κεφαλαία στο κείμενο). Δεν υπάρχουν πλέον αμφισβητήσεις. Σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 7 της Συμφωνίας, η “μακεδονική” ταυτότητα αντικατοπτρίζει το έδαφός μας, την γλώσσα, το λαό, με όλα τα χαρακτηριστικά γνωρίσματα, με την ιστορία, τον πολιτισμό και την κληρονομιά του.


3. Η “μακεδονική” γλώσσα προστατεύεται

Σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 1 (3) της Συμφωνίας, επίσημη γλώσσα της χώρας μας είναι η “μακεδονική γλώσσα”, που είναι μεταφράσιμη σε όλες τις γλώσσες (π.χ. στα αγγλικά “Macedonian language”). Χωρίς επεξηγηματική υποσημείωση. Η “μακεδονική” γλώσσα κατοχυρώνεται, η ταυτότητα διαφυλάσσεται.


4. Η υπηκοότητα είναι “μακεδονική”, τώρα και στο μέλλον

Σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 1 (3) της Συμφωνίας, η υπηκοότητά μας θα είναι: “Μακεδονική” / πολίτης της Βόρειας Μακεδονίας


5. Ο ύμνος, το εθνόσημο και η σημαία δεν αλλάζουν

Τα κρατικά σύμβολα δεν αποτέλεσαν μέρος της διαπραγματευτικής διαδικασίας


6. Το “MK” και το “MKD” παραμένουν οι διεθνώς αποδεκτοί και αναγνωρίσιμοι κωδικοί

Κωδικός της χώρας συνεχίζει να είναι το “MK” και το “MKD”, όπως έχει αποφασίσει επίσημα ο Διεθνής Οργανισμός Τυποποίησης (ISO)


7. Λάβαμε πρόσκληση για ένταξη στο ΝΑΤΟ. Θα γίνουμε το 30ο μέλος της Συμμαχίας

Η πρόσκληση ήταν εγκλωβισμένη από το 2008. Με τη Συμφωνία απομακρύνουμε το τελευταίο εμπόδιο για την ένταξή μας στο ΝΑΤΟ. Εξασφαλίζεται η ασφάλεια και η οικονομική μας ανάπτυξη.


8. Θα ξεκινήσουμε ενταξιακές διαπραγματεύσεις με την ΕΕ, οι προετοιμασίες βρίσκονται σε εξέλιξη

Έχουμε καθεστώς υποψήφιας προς ένταξη χώρας από το 2005 και από το 2009 λαμβάνουμε συστάσεις από την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή για έναρξη διαπραγματεύσεων. Για πρώτη φορά λαμβάνουμε ημερομηνία έναρξης ενταξιακών διαπραγματεύσεων, ως αποτέλεσμα της Συμφωνίας με την Ελλάδα.


9. Η Συμφωνία εγγυάται την “μακεδονο”-ελληνική φιλία και συνεργασία

Αυξάνεται η πολιτιστική συνεργασία μεταξύ της “Μακεδονίας” και της Ελλάδας στον τομέα των τεχνών, του χορού, του κινηματογράφου, της μουσικής, του θεάτρου και του αθλητισμού. Διευκολύνονται τα ταξίδια με τον εκσυγχρονισμό των συνοριακών διόδων και την κατασκευή νέων. Αυξάνεται η συνεργασία μεταξύ των δύο χωρών στον αγώνα για την αντιμετώπιση του οργανωμένου και του διασυνοριακού εγκλήματος, της τρομοκρατίας και του οικονομικού εγκλήματος


10. Δεν υπάρχει πλέον FYROM

Με την υλοποίηση της Συμφωνίας θα σταματήσει να ισχύει η ονομασία FYROM (ΠΓΔΜ) και η χώρα μας θα καταχωρηθεί στα Ηνωμένα Έθνη με το όνομα Δημοκρατία της Βόρειας Μακεδονίας, μεταφρασμένο σε όλες τις γλώσσες //



Επισημαίνεται ότι το εν λόγω φύλλο πληροφοριών συνοδεύεται από το παρακάτω οπτικό υλικό, που ενδέχεται να αποτελέσει την πρώτη φάση της ενημερωτικής εκστρατείας της κυβέρνησης της πΓΔΜ ενόψει του δημοψηφίσματος:


ΕΙΚΟΝΑ 1

ΚΕΙΜΕΝΟ: «Με τη συμφωνία εξασφαλίζουμε το “μακεδονικό” μέλλον!»
ΕΙΚΟΝΑ 2

ΚΕΙΜΕΝΟ: «Ο “μακεδονικός” ύμνος, το εθνόσημο και η σημαία δεν αλλάζουν»
ΕΙΚΟΝΑ 3

ΚΕΙΜΕΝΟ: «Με την υλοποίηση της Συμφωνίας η ονομασία FYROM θα αποτελέσει παρελθόν»
ΕΙΚΟΝΑ 4

ΚΕΙΜΕΝΟ: «Με το άρθρο 7 της Συμφωνίας, η “μακεδονική” ταυτότητα προστατεύεται»
ΕΙΚΟΝΑ 5

ΚΕΙΜΕΝΟ: «Σύντομα ξεκινάμε διαπραγματεύσεις με την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση.Οι προετοιμασίες βρίσκονται σε εξέλιξη»
ΕΙΚΟΝΑ 6

ΚΕΙΜΕΝΟ: «Η “Μακεδονία” θα γίνει το επόμενο μέλος του ΝΑΤΟ / Με τη συμφωνία απομακρύνουμε το τελευταίο εμπόδιο για την ένταξη»
ΕΙΚΟΝΑ 7

ΚΕΙΜΕΝΟ: «Σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 1 της Συμφωνίας, η “μακεδονική” γλώσσα προστατεύεται»
ΕΙΚΟΝΑ 8

ΚΕΙΜΕΝΟ: «Οι διεθνείς κωδικοί της “Μακεδονίας” ΜΚ και MKD δεν αλλάζουν»



           European corruption watchdog calls Macedonia...       Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
SKOPJE, Macedonia (AP) - Macedonia's performance on preventing corruption is "clearly disappointing," the Council of Europe's anti-corruption group has said,...
          6 Interesting Events And Festivals To Attend In Macedonia      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Macedonia is where many unique events and festivals happen. It might sound strange, but below you’ll see what fun and unique things we organized so far. Everything from cultural events to traditional ones – there is something for everyone. 1. Taksirat Definitely just a plain regular festival. This show event has numerous artists every time […] More
          Product For Sale: Pocket Battles: Macedonians vs. Persians      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

by flynetqc

C$8.00 for Board Game: Pocket Battles: Macedonians vs. Persians
Condition: New
Location: Canada
          MAE: În Grecia se menţine risc ridicat de incendii - atenţionare de călătorie      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Ministerul Afacerilor Externe informează cetăţenii români care se află, tranzitează sau doresc să călătorească în Republica Elenă că Secretariatul General de Protecţie Civilă grec avertizează că există în continuare un risc ridicat de incendiu (grad 4). Într-o atenţionare de călătorie emisă vineri, MAE precizează că riscul de incendiu se menţine ridicat în următoarele regiuni: Grecia Centrală (insulele Evia si Skyros, precum si regiunile Fokida, Fthiotida, Viotia); peninsula Attica; nordul Mării Egee (insulele Lesvos, Chios, Samos, Ikaria); Insulele Ionice (Lefkada, Kefalonia, Zakynthos); vestul Greciei; Peloponez; Macedonia centrală (Halkidiki); Estul Macedoniei şi Tracia (insula Thasos). Detalii despre evoluţia vremii se pot obţine accesând portalurile http://www.meteoalarm.eu/ro_RO/0/0/GR-Grecia.html si http://www.hnms.gr/emy/en/index_html. Cetăţenii români pot solicita asistenţă consulară la numerele de telefon ale Ambasadei României la Atena: +302106728879 si +302106728875, apelurile fiind redirecţionate către Centrul de Contact şi Suport al Cetăţenilor Români din Străinătate (CCSCR) şi preluate de către operatorii Call Center în regim de permanenţă. De asemenea, cetăţenii români care se confruntă cu o situaţie cu caracter de urgenţă, au la dispoziţie şi telefonul de permanenţă al Ambasadei României în Republica Elenă: +306978996222. Ministerul Afacerilor Externe recomandă consultarea paginilor de Internet http://atena.mae.ro, www.mae.ro şi reaminteste faptul că cetăţenii români care călătoresc în străinătate au la dispoziţie aplicaţia "Călătoreste în siguranţă" (http://www.mae.ro/app_cs), care oferă informaţii şi sfaturi de călătorie. AGERPRES/(AS, editor: Karina Olteanu, editor online: Daniela Juncu)
          Festivalul de Film de la Sarajevo: Şapte producţii cinematografice româneşti în cadrul secţiunilor de competiţie      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Cea de-a 24-a ediţie a Festivalului de Film de la Sarajevo, care se va desfăşura în perioada 10-17 august, prezintă şapte producţii cinematografice româneşti în cadrul secţiunilor de competiţie, informează Institutul Cultural Român pe site-ul său. Filmele Luna de miere (regia Ioana Uricaru - premieră regională), Un prinţ şi jumătate (regia Ana Lungu - premieră mondială) şi Dragoste 1: Câine (regia Florin Şerban - premieră mondială) sunt incluse în competiţia de lungmetraje. Competiţia de scurtmetraje prezintă în premieră regională filmul Totul e foarte departe în regia lui Enanuel Pârvu şi în premieră mondială producţia Morski Briz în regia Ceciliei Ştefănescu. În competiţia de film studenţesc va fi prezentă în premieră mondială producţia 16 lovituri în regia lui Alexandru Badea şi în premieră regională filmul Albastru şi roşu, în proporţii egale semnat de Georgiana Moldoveanu. Totodată, ediţia din acest an a festivalului cuprinde două filme româneşti în secţiunea dedicată In Focus: Touch me not în regia Adinei Pintilie şi Fotbal infinit de Corneliu Porumboiu. Festivalul pune accent pe regiunea Europei Centrale şi de Est incluzând producţii din Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaidjan, Bosnia şi Herţegovina, Bulgaria, Croaţia, Cipru, Grecia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Muntenegru, România, Serbia, Slovenia, Turcia şi Ungaria. Publicul poate viziona premiere mondiale, internaţionale sau regionale şi o retrospectivă a celor mai de succes producţii ale anului anterior, în secţiunea dedicată In Focus. Programul competiţional al festivalului este împărţit în secţiunile: lungmetraj, scurtmetraj şi documentar. Institutul Cultural Român de la Viena este pentru al patrulea an la rând partener al Sarajevo Film Festival, sprijinind prezenţele româneşti la festival. Pe lângă programul competiţional, un număr semnificativ de cineaşti români sunt invitaţi să participe la programele dedicate industriei cinematografice: CineLink, Docu Rough Cut Boutique şi Talents Sarajevo. CineLink Industry facilitează întâlnirea distribuitorilor şi producătorilor cu realizatorii unor filme aflate în stadiul de post-producţie, prezentând cele mai promiţătoare proiecte regionale. Talents Sarajevo se desfăşoară pe toată durata festivalului, fiind o platformă regională de întâlnire şi pregătire a 61 de artişti aspiranţi din lumea filmului, dintre care opt din România. Iniţiat în 2007 în colaborare cu Festivalul Internaţional de Film de la Berlin şi Berlinale Talents, programul reuneşte participanţi din Europa de Sud-Est şi Caucazul de Sud. Din România au fost selectaţi următorii participanţi: Alfredo Constantin Minea şi Pavel Ulici (actori), Andreea Lăcătuş (regizor), Ana-Maria Voicu (producător), Livia Diana Plopeanu şi Răzvan-Gabriel Dutchevici (scenarişti), Letiţia Gabriela Ştefănescu (editor) şi Victor Morozov (presă). Pentru Pack&Pitch Projects a fost selectat proiectul The Day the Child in me Died â€&#39; producător Ana-Maria Voicu. Docu Rough Cut Boutique prezintă printre cele 5 producţii finaliste, proiectul The Chalice (regia Cătălina Tesar, producător Anda Ionescu). Acest atelier de dezvoltare a proiectelor de film documentar reuneşte în sesiuni de grup, întâlniri individuale şi sesiuni intense de story editing specialişti din domeniu şi echipele filmelor selectate. Proiectele selectate la Docu Rough Cut Boutique intră în competiţie pentru cinci premii în bani şi sprijin non-financiar pentru post-producţie. În acest an, Docu Rough Cut Boutique este organizat în două module, primul desfăşurându-se la Sofia la finalul lunii iunie. AGERPRES/(AS - editor: Mariana Ionescu, editor online: Irina Giurgiu)   Sursa foto: facebook.com/sarajevofilmfestival
          UPDATE 1-Fitch upgrades Greece rating to 'BB-' from 'B'      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Aug 10- Global rating agency Fitch Ratings upgraded the long-term foreign currency issuer default rating on Greece to' BB-' from' B'. While Fitch noted that the recent deal to end a decades-long name dispute between Greece and Macedonia poses a risk of near-term snap elections to the country's ruling left-right coalition, the rating agency also assessed that...


Next Page: 10000

Site Map 2018_01_14
Site Map 2018_01_15
Site Map 2018_01_16
Site Map 2018_01_17
Site Map 2018_01_18
Site Map 2018_01_19
Site Map 2018_01_20
Site Map 2018_01_21
Site Map 2018_01_22
Site Map 2018_01_23
Site Map 2018_01_24
Site Map 2018_01_25
Site Map 2018_01_26
Site Map 2018_01_27
Site Map 2018_01_28
Site Map 2018_01_29
Site Map 2018_01_30
Site Map 2018_01_31
Site Map 2018_02_01
Site Map 2018_02_02
Site Map 2018_02_03
Site Map 2018_02_04
Site Map 2018_02_05
Site Map 2018_02_06
Site Map 2018_02_07
Site Map 2018_02_08
Site Map 2018_02_09
Site Map 2018_02_10
Site Map 2018_02_11
Site Map 2018_02_12
Site Map 2018_02_13
Site Map 2018_02_14
Site Map 2018_02_15
Site Map 2018_02_15
Site Map 2018_02_16
Site Map 2018_02_17
Site Map 2018_02_18
Site Map 2018_02_19
Site Map 2018_02_20
Site Map 2018_02_21
Site Map 2018_02_22
Site Map 2018_02_23
Site Map 2018_02_24
Site Map 2018_02_25
Site Map 2018_02_26
Site Map 2018_02_27
Site Map 2018_02_28
Site Map 2018_03_01
Site Map 2018_03_02
Site Map 2018_03_03
Site Map 2018_03_04
Site Map 2018_03_05
Site Map 2018_03_06
Site Map 2018_03_07
Site Map 2018_03_08
Site Map 2018_03_09
Site Map 2018_03_10
Site Map 2018_03_11
Site Map 2018_03_12
Site Map 2018_03_13
Site Map 2018_03_14
Site Map 2018_03_15
Site Map 2018_03_16
Site Map 2018_03_17
Site Map 2018_03_18
Site Map 2018_03_19
Site Map 2018_03_20
Site Map 2018_03_21
Site Map 2018_03_22
Site Map 2018_03_23
Site Map 2018_03_24
Site Map 2018_03_25
Site Map 2018_03_26
Site Map 2018_03_27
Site Map 2018_03_28
Site Map 2018_03_29
Site Map 2018_03_30
Site Map 2018_03_31
Site Map 2018_04_01
Site Map 2018_04_02
Site Map 2018_04_03
Site Map 2018_04_04
Site Map 2018_04_05
Site Map 2018_04_06
Site Map 2018_04_07
Site Map 2018_04_08
Site Map 2018_04_09
Site Map 2018_04_10
Site Map 2018_04_11
Site Map 2018_04_12
Site Map 2018_04_13
Site Map 2018_04_14
Site Map 2018_04_15
Site Map 2018_04_16
Site Map 2018_04_17
Site Map 2018_04_18
Site Map 2018_04_19
Site Map 2018_04_20
Site Map 2018_04_21
Site Map 2018_04_22
Site Map 2018_04_23
Site Map 2018_04_24
Site Map 2018_04_25
Site Map 2018_04_26
Site Map 2018_04_27
Site Map 2018_04_28
Site Map 2018_04_29
Site Map 2018_04_30
Site Map 2018_05_01
Site Map 2018_05_02
Site Map 2018_05_03
Site Map 2018_05_04
Site Map 2018_05_05
Site Map 2018_05_06
Site Map 2018_05_07
Site Map 2018_05_08
Site Map 2018_05_09
Site Map 2018_05_15
Site Map 2018_05_16
Site Map 2018_05_17
Site Map 2018_05_18
Site Map 2018_05_19
Site Map 2018_05_20
Site Map 2018_05_21
Site Map 2018_05_22
Site Map 2018_05_23
Site Map 2018_05_24
Site Map 2018_05_25
Site Map 2018_05_26
Site Map 2018_05_27
Site Map 2018_05_28
Site Map 2018_05_29
Site Map 2018_05_30
Site Map 2018_05_31
Site Map 2018_06_01
Site Map 2018_06_02
Site Map 2018_06_03
Site Map 2018_06_04
Site Map 2018_06_05
Site Map 2018_06_06
Site Map 2018_06_07
Site Map 2018_06_08
Site Map 2018_06_09
Site Map 2018_06_10
Site Map 2018_06_11
Site Map 2018_06_12
Site Map 2018_06_13
Site Map 2018_06_14
Site Map 2018_06_15
Site Map 2018_06_16
Site Map 2018_06_17
Site Map 2018_06_18
Site Map 2018_06_19
Site Map 2018_06_20
Site Map 2018_06_21
Site Map 2018_06_22
Site Map 2018_06_23
Site Map 2018_06_24
Site Map 2018_06_25
Site Map 2018_06_26
Site Map 2018_06_27
Site Map 2018_06_28
Site Map 2018_06_29
Site Map 2018_06_30
Site Map 2018_07_01
Site Map 2018_07_02
Site Map 2018_07_03
Site Map 2018_07_04
Site Map 2018_07_05
Site Map 2018_07_06
Site Map 2018_07_07
Site Map 2018_07_08
Site Map 2018_07_09
Site Map 2018_07_10
Site Map 2018_07_11
Site Map 2018_07_12
Site Map 2018_07_13
Site Map 2018_07_14
Site Map 2018_07_15
Site Map 2018_07_16
Site Map 2018_07_17
Site Map 2018_07_18
Site Map 2018_07_19
Site Map 2018_07_20
Site Map 2018_07_21
Site Map 2018_07_22
Site Map 2018_07_23
Site Map 2018_07_24
Site Map 2018_07_25
Site Map 2018_07_26
Site Map 2018_07_27
Site Map 2018_07_28
Site Map 2018_07_29
Site Map 2018_07_30
Site Map 2018_07_31
Site Map 2018_08_01
Site Map 2018_08_02
Site Map 2018_08_03
Site Map 2018_08_04
Site Map 2018_08_05
Site Map 2018_08_06
Site Map 2018_08_07
Site Map 2018_08_08
Site Map 2018_08_09
Site Map 2018_08_10